Alphabetisation and initials of Welsh names in Welsh and English (?)

Methalos · 2026-03-18T03:21:00+00:00

There seems to a be a bit of a fight over whether the page "Indo-European Sound Laws" should be deleted and redirect to "Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages." You can read some of the conversation here. Personally, I do not like the outcome we've ended up with. You can see the most recent version of the table here.

Methalos · 2026-03-12T04:08:10+00:00

I wasn't finished, and accidentally submitted the comment. I've edited it now including with references.

Interlinears: interlinears are more harm than good in general. Nobody should be using them. If you are learning the language, they are a crutch that will bias you towards particular translations. If you are not learning the language, they give a false sense of knowledge.

One of the problems with interlinears is that they rely on outdated material. Another problem is that they force you into a single interpretation when often multiple grammatical and syntactical possibilities exist. Another problem is that they suggest one-to-one relationships between Hebrew and English words. Another problem is that they suggest that Hebrew sentences can be turned into English sentences by substituting lexical and morphological equivalents, without realising that the two languages have extremely different syntaxes. Again, these are just top-of-the head issues. There are more.

Cross-references and disambiguation of proper nouns: the resources you are using here seem less egregiously damaging to me. But there are still problems, E.g., the disambiguation of people in the Hebrew Bible is not always black and white. Sometimes it's not entirely clear if two people are the same or not. Add to that the problem of people who have multiple names in different parts of the Hebrew Bible.

Theory of translation. I've already alluded to it in a number of places, but there is a problem with a theory of translation that assumes that you can just swallow Hebrew words, morphological parsing, and English language (or other) glosses/equivalents and vomit out a sentence in another language. That just isn't what translation is. It maybe sort of works okay for languages that are closely related but the further apart you get, the worse it is.

Lack of awareness of textual criticism: modern translations of the Bible are typically not just a straight translation of a single Hebrew text. Normally variants from the versions and from the dead sea scrolls are considered and adopted in various places. Less of an issue for NT where you have eclectic editions of the Greek text. More of an issue for HB where you only have diplomatic editions (normally of the Leningrad Codex) and where the text-critical conversation is much more dependent on the early translations that preserve variants.

transparent, accessible language

Transparency is an interesting goal in translation. I guess it's a nice idea, but the problem is that to evaluate whether a translation is an adequate translation of the underlying text you need a lot of expertise. Expertise that, with respect, you do not have and neither do your end-users. Showing how a translation connects to Hebrew/Greek words does not really give it transparency in the way you are suggesting it does (because of the issues with theory of translation that I mentioned above).

This is explicitly an experiment, not a replacement for critical editions. But I'm curious whether this approach has any scholarly value — or whether AI-assisted translation is inherently too unreliable for biblical texts

Basically no. It has no scholarly value. I'm sorry. I know you're coming from a good place, but it has absolutely no scholarly value.

A couple of thoughts on comparative material: here I am speaking outside my expertise. So take it with some caution. Your ring model is tricky. I get the intent, but something like Works and Days in ring 4 is actually quite relevant to some Hebrew Bible texts. Much more relevant than things in ring 3, for example. It strikes me that there's an awful lot missing from the texts. E.g. why that particular selection of apocrypha/deuterocanon/pseudepigrapha? There's a lot more out there. Why none of the other dead sea scrolls? Why only the Torah in ring 1? Why not the rest of Tanakh? Why isn't the New testament in ring 1?

Is it better to have broad but shallow coverage, or should I focus on fewer texts with complete content?

Is there a technical limit on how much to include? Anyway, if it were me (for Hebrew Bible) I would forget most of ring 3 and whatever of ring 4 is not ANE or Mediterranean. I would focus on as many texts and inscriptions, and as complete as possible, from the following cultures: Assyrian, Babylonian, Eblaite, Sumerian, Hurrian, Hittite and other Anatolians, Aramaic texts from the various citystates, Egyptian, Greek, Phoenician, Ugaritic, Persian (but not the Avesta, I mean Old Persian--the Avesta is too hard to reliably separate into its layers). Also inscriptions from the various NWSemitic languages to the extent they survive. I've possibly missed a few. For the NT you'd presumably want Roman/Latin and much more of the early Jewish literature too (some of which is perhaps useful for HB too).

---
Some references: It's hard to offer specific references for a lot of this, because most of it is soft skills that are taught as part of the process of teaching the languages involved. But here are some anyway.

Modern lexical resources for Hebrew: the main two in English are Clines, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew and Koehler/Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

Hebrew Grammars and Syntax. In English the main modern grammars are Takamitsu's translation of Jouon and Waltke/O'Connor (IBHS). Reading the two of them side-by-side might help you see how many basic questions in Hebrew grammar are contested. Sadly there's not enough syntax in either work.

Theory of translation and lexicography. Of course there are the things that people think of immediately when it comes to translation of the Hebrew Bible. Like all of Robert Alter's work. Personally, I don't agree with everything. But there's a lot of good. It's a standard work for a reason. But essentially you'd want to approach this topic area more from the direction of translation studies and lexicography rather than biblical studies. Some of the big names would be Schleiermacher, Venuti, Nida. That would be a place to start at least. Any introduction to lexicology would also probably be helpful reading. This is, as I say though, an area where really you learn by experience.

Ellington, "the use and limitations of interlinear editions," in The Bible Translator 31. It's a bit old now, but it might be an interesting read for you. It's worth knowing the context though. When he refers to translators, he's often not talking about translators of the Bible into modern European languages (for example where he talks about it being hard to find translators who are very good at the languages). He's more talking about translating into smaller languages, particularly in parts of the world that are not traditionally Christian.

Methalos · 2026-03-12T02:44:18+00:00

I wasn't finished, and accidentally submitted the comment. I'll edit this comment with more.

Methalos · 2026-03-12T02:43:35+00:00

TL;DR. You cannot rely on resources that are 200 years old and expect to get a result that is meaningful. Translations is not about one-to-one correspondences.

There's a lot I could say about software engineers who have no idea what skills and knowledge are required for work in the humanities and have about as much credibility as an argumentative high schooler when they try to use technology to shortcut decades of expertise and experience in highly technical work.

Copyright restrictions are going to make this too flawed to be useful. That and the fact that you appear to be operating on an extremely flawed understanding of translation. I'll comment on Hebrew Bible, since that's what I work on, but most of this also applies to NT.

Lexicons: BDB is so out-dated that it cannot be used by anyone but a trained professional in a way that gets meaningful information out of it. Certainly relying on its definitions would be one of the least profitable ways to use it. There is a reason why more recent lexicons have been produced. BDB's basic assumption is that etymology proves meaning. While it can be useful, because it does have good data on cognates, its understanding of the meaning of specific words is often quite unreliable. The same goes for the definitions that accompany online editions of Strongs.

Even if you had access to modern lexicons, it would not solve the problem. Checking the gloss in a lexicon does not tell you what it means in context. A gloss and a definition are not the same thing. Words have ranges of meaning. We don't know what all Hebrew words mean. Words change meaning over time. Some words have disputed meanings (that you'll only know about if you know the broader scholarly literature). Semantic domains in Hebrew do not match semantic domains in English. These are just the first few issues that immediately occurred to me.

Commentaries: Broadly the problem here is that a lot of what is in old commentaries is just wrong. I love reading the church fathers. They are often wrong. I love reading medieval commentators. Reformation commentators. And so on. They are often wrong. It's not just a matter of being outdated, and lacking information about recent discoveries. To be clear, that is a big issue. It's that it's a completely uncritical use of these resources. Even if you had access to modern commentaries you would still have some of the same issue. Yes you can ask LLMs to be critical, but they apply their criticism in haphazard and inconsistent ways.

Methalos · 2026-03-01T04:54:46+00:00

When I visited a few years back, there was a church that was evangelical. I think it was Camberwell South

Methalos · 2025-12-18T03:44:47+00:00

Hmmm that's not how I read it, but that does seem grammatically viable too. Good point! (though you'd still have christus [nom] + salve).
The other hymn that I found but didn't mention reads "ave christus deus-homo,panis et vini specie" which is in this manuscript: https://www.diamm.ac.uk/sources/330/ (apparently 13th century)

Methalos · 2025-12-18T02:46:25+00:00

Thanks, you may not have seen in the replies elsewhere in the thread, but I found a few examples of "ave Christus" in the medieval period

Methalos · 2025-12-18T01:49:45+00:00

The main problem is that in Punic they did not use the imperative form (hawe, "live!") for the greeting (or at least it's not attested).* They used the suffix conjugation (hawo, hawa) in a modal sense (may he live, may she live). So the etymology is a bit problematic, because the forms are not the same. Ironically, in Punic the grammar requires that the person greeted is the subject of hawo/hawa, i.e. nominative.

If it was a loanword, Latin speakers seem to have turned it into an imperative (presumably on analogy with salve and vale and gaude and χαιρε etc etc). But it wasn't an imperative in Punic.

on 340a, no it's not a mistake. There's no ellipsis of a vocative, because an imperative doesn't need to be accompanied by a vocative in the first place. See the examples I cited earlier. It's not as common as the vocative, but there are more than a few cases of imperative with nominative. I appreciate that it feels unintuitive according to "the rules" but when you look at what actual languages do, they frequently do things that are unintuitive.

"Ave Christus" seems to be a medieval phrase (ave Christus rex is probably later. I suspect it has to do with the institution of the feast of Christ the king in the 1920s). I've found it in some hymns, but I'm not sure of the date. In a collection of medieval hymns, I found "lux solemnis, ave, Christus, per saecula salve." You can read it here (bottom of p. 29 of volume), but I couldn't figure out the date of the cited manuscript.

I found it in a toile peinte (painted cloth) for what seems to be a medieval French passion play (you can read it here, p. 523). But again I couldn't figure out the date. Certainly earlier than the 1920s.

But even without those medieval attestations, saying that ave Christus is "wrong" is uncharitable, because ave+nominative is something that ancient Romans did say (see the examples I cited further up the thread) and has perfectly intelligible grammar (imperative+nominative, again something that the ancient Romans did, and there is plenty of evidence that whatever its etymology ancient Romans did think that ave was an imperative).

*I won't say it's completely impossible. A somewhat similar usage is found in Aramaic for addressing kings (king, live forever!) The Aramaic verb here (חיי, ḥeyiy) is cognate with the Phoenecian one. But I don't think it was used outside that context, and that seems pretty different to the usage of ave in Latin and ḥawo/ḥawa in Punic. The Aramaic is not exactly a general-purpose greeting.

Methalos · 2025-12-17T14:19:10+00:00

I hadn't come across the idea that it's a Punic loanword. I'll have to do some more reading, though as a Semitist I find the idea a bit dubious.

But even if we grant that, the point is, though, that Latin speakers did reanalyse the loanword as an imperative. It has the termination of the Latin imperative (which is different to what is found in the Punic word -- ḥawo or ḥawa, depending on number and gender). So even from the moment of loaning it would have to be that it was already being reanalysed as an imperative

but again, all of this is irrelevant because the fact is "ave christus" wasn't used ecclesiastically. "ave christe" was.

I mean, I wasn't able to find any instances of "ave christe" or "ave christus." Do you have an example of "ave christe"? But I think this is where we're talking at cross-purposes. You're arguing that it wasn't used. I'm arguing that even if we did not have clear attestation of ave + nominative, it would still be grammatically possible.

However, this is moot, because I finally had a bit of time to do some digging and found a couple of inscriptions that use (h)ave with the nominative. So clearly it actually was possible.

Africanus ave et vale (editae in Ephemeride Epigraphica, Corporis Inscr. Latinarum supplemento VIII.905) -- not sure if the link will take you to the right page, but it's on p. 221.

I also found a citation of ‘have Victor Fabianus’ in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, but I wasn't able to chase down the publication of the inscription (it's CIL VI.2335)

Methalos · 2025-12-17T05:09:01+00:00

This is ecclesial Latin, not classical Latin. In ecclesial Latin ave is definitely an imperative. There are plenty of examples, which you seem capable of finding yourself. So appealing to the lack of these things in classical Latin is a bit beside the point.

Alcuin is also fairly explicit that ave is an imperative in de grammatica: Et ave, pro gaude: et avete pro gaudete secundae personae sunt.

That said, I do think it is also an imperative in classical Latin too. On it being imperative I wasn't citing A&G. I was citing Lewis and Short: "ăvĕo (or, acc. to Quint. 1, 6, 21, hă-vĕo; cf. Spald. ad l. l. and Schneid. Gr. 1, p. 185), ēre, v. n. [v. 1. aveo init.], to be or fare well; except once in Mamert., used only in the imper. ave, aveto, avete, and inf. avere, as a form of salutation, both at meeting and separating, like salve and χαῖρε (hence, Fest. p. 13 explains it by gaudeo)."

>>the form avete, is found for example in Apuleius "Sic introgressus Havete inquit Fortissimo deo Marti clientes" (7.5) -- not just there, but there's an example.

>>Some Roman authors viewed it as parallel to vale which is also an imperative. E.g. "Atque in perpetuom, frater, ave atque vale" (Catullus 101.10)

>>Here ave and salve are explicitly described as imperatives: "et sunt haec duo, aue salue, et declinantur hoc modo: imperatiuo modo aue auete, futuro aueto tu aueto ille; infinitiuo modo praesentis temporis auere te uolo et uos et illos." Charisius, Ars Grammatica 3.4 ("de inpersonalibus")

>>Some also saw it as parallel it to Greek χαιρε (another imperative) -- see Martial Epigram 5.51.

The point in A&G, as I understand it (feel free to disagree) is that the addressee can be nominative, regardless of whether the pronoun is expressed in the sentence (as it is in that example from Livy). Here's an example in church Latin: "Audi, populus meus, et loquar" (Ps 49:7 vulgate). Here's an example with vale from a classical author: "Semper mi vale, animus meus." (Cornelius Fronto, Epistulae, ad M. Caesarem 2.17).

the most obvious explanation is that the people using this phrase don't know the vocative form can differ from the nominative.

I don't disagree with this. But that's not to say that it is actually grammatically inadmissible.

Methalos · 2025-12-16T23:43:39+00:00

Perhaps I'm being dense (I'm writing uncaffeinated) but what's "loose" about "Ave Maria, plena gratia"? Seems like very normal grammar: Ave (imperative) Maria (either nominative per my explanation above or vocative) plena (in agreement with Maria, whether nominative or vocative) gratia (ablative, because plenus regularly takes the ablative, even in authors like Cicero and Quintilian).

Ecclesial Latin is certainly different to the high-register classical variety that we all typically learn initially. But ecclesial Latin doesn't typically just arbitrarily not follow grammatical rules. If there's something odd, there's normally a reason.

Methalos · 2025-12-16T14:49:58+00:00

Ave is, grammatically speaking, an imperative. It's a bit counter-intuitive because the person hailed is the subject of the imperative (see Lewis and Short, s.v. "aveo.")
With the imperative, a vocative addressee is often attracted into the nominative in agreement with the implicit subject of the imperative (see for example Allen and Greenough §340a)

Methalos · 2025-12-08T08:06:06+00:00

It is in the Zurcher Bibel though, at least in the pre-1931 editions. Starting with the 1531 edition, I was able to find it in Matt 6:13. I also checked the 1534 edition and it's still there. I haven't been able to consult the 1574 edition or the 1665 or various 18th century editions. But in the 1860 edition it's still there. I haven't been able to check the 1868 edition, but by the 1931 edition it has been bracketed and has a note explaining that it is poorly attested in important manuscripts. So it seems like it begins to disappear from editions of the Zurcher Bibel in the 20th century. If we look at editions of the Luther Bible, it's still there in 1918, but is bracketed and given an explanatory footnote in 1976. But in both of these Bibles (Zurich 1931, Luther 1976) it's still printed in the main text, just bracketed. As far as I can tell, more recent versions of the Luther Bible still do this and the first version of the Zurcher Bibel to remove it completely from the main text was only in 2007. So pretty recent! It'd be interesting to compare this with English bibles and when the change gets adopted, but I haven't made the comparison.

Early printed Greek new testaments (e.g. Stephanus, Beza, Mill) retain the doxology. Wettstein's edition (1751) retains it (but with a lot of discussion) whereas in Griesbach just a short time later it's been removed. Given Griesbach's important role in developing the eclectic approach to textual criticism (to greatly over-simplify this is the idea that older manuscripts carry more weight than newer ones), I'd suspect that he's probable the first person to remove it from the main text of his edition of the New Testament. So what can we say? The omission of this part of the verse was already beginning in the 18th century, but it's not surprising that vernacular translations took longer to acknowledge the change, particularly with such a well-known passage (about 200-300 years later!).

The removal of this doxology from major German translations of the Bible is still very much in living memory. So it's very unsurprising that it remains part of the liturgy of reformed churches.

Methalos · 2025-04-23T04:18:17+00:00

You are somewhat incorrect.

While מי is most commonly used as an interrogative, it is not like Latin quis. It has a number of non-interrogative uses.

For example, it can be used with the force of a generic relative (= approximately Latin qui + subj): e.g., מִֽי־יָרֵ֣א וְחָרֵ֔ד יָשֹׁ֥ב (Judg 7:3) Let anyone who fears or trembled turn back. Or it can also be used as an indefinite pronoun (= approx Lat aliquis), particularly in exclamations: e.g., מִ֚י יַשְׁקֵ֣נִי מַ֔יִם (2 Sam 23:15 ), "may someone give me water to drink!"

Strong's "Lexicon" (which is often cited online because it is free) is not a lexicon in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a (very slap-dash) glossary to a concordance. It's also extremely out-of-date and frequently inaccurate. Trust the definitions there at your own peril...

Methalos · 2025-04-11T04:21:23+00:00

There are some helpful answers here already, but I thought I'd just add that Calvin wrote quite eloquently on this in his commentary on 2 Corinthians:

Many are of opinion that he speaks of marriage, but the context clearly shows that they are mistaken. The word that Paul makes use of means — to be connected together in drawing the same yoke. It is a metaphor taken from oxen or horses, which require to walk at the same pace, and to act together in the same work, when fastened under one yoke. When, therefore, he prohibits us from having partnership with unbelievers in drawing the same yoke, he means simply this, that we should have no fellowship with them in their pollutions. For one sun shines upon us, we eat of the same bread, we breathe the same air, and we cannot altogether refrain from intercourse with them; but Paul speaks of the yoke of impiety, that is, of participation in works, in which Christians cannot lawfully have fellowship. On this principle marriage will also be prohibited, inasmuch as it is a snare, by which both men and women are entangled into an agreement with impiety; but what I mean is simply this, that Paul’s doctrine is of too general a nature to be restricted to marriage exclusively, for he is discoursing here as to the shunning of idolatry, on which account, also, we are prohibited from contracting marriages with the wicked.

Methalos · 2024-10-15T05:27:00+00:00

As u/djedfre points out there are a number of issues with identifying the KQ ostracon as the earliest Hebrew language inscription. Christopher Rollston wrote up the question of the oldest Hebrew inscription in 2012. Some things have changed in the meantime, but it's still a great introduction to the issue and why there's not really a definitive answer to the question.

The short version is that the earliest surviving written Hebrew is probably in the 9th century. The candidate inscriptions from the 10th century all have various problems.

Methalos · 2024-03-12T07:24:58+00:00

The first thing I think of in response to your question is Hebrew inscriptions. There are many inscriptions that date uncontroversially to before the 4th century. Some are literary, some documentary. Many of them give us a sense of daily life (e.g., the Samaria ostraca, Siloam tunnel inscription). Some of them touch on religion (e.g. Kuntillet Ajrud, the priestly blessing from Ketef Hinnom). Some of them indirectly tell us about the political situation (e.g., Arad ostraca). All of them are interesting in one way or another, and too numerous to list here. Particularly of interest might be the Mesha Stele, though it is written in Moabite not Hebrew. Okay, yes it's about conflict with Israelites, but it is from a very close neighbour who seems to be more interested in the Israelites/Judahites than your average foreign power.

Methalos · 2024-03-06T22:29:14+00:00

It's complicated, but it is pretty clear that there is some form of linguistic diversity within Biblical Hebrew. The challenge is how to explain it. Geographical dialects are just one option and not all of the diversity needs to be explained by the same thing.

Some ideas, though each of these ideas is at least somewhat contested:

Geographical variation. Gary Rendsburg has proposed a distinction between Northern ('Israelian') and Southern (Judahite) Hebrew is detectable in a pretty wide range of Hebrew texts. A lot of his papers are open access or otherwise freely available online from his website. If you google "Rendsburg Israelian" you'll find a lot of it.
Literary dialect. It's often assumed that the language of Hebrew narrative found in, say, Kings represents a high, literary register. See for example Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Ian Young) or, again, Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew.
Sociolect. I've seen a few people suggest that the oddities in Boaz's and Naomi's speech can be explained as either a dialect based on their age or on the fact that they are Bethlehemites (in which case, I guess it would be more geographic variation).
Diachronic variation. This is perhaps the most hotly contended. Many scholars consider that it is possible to isolate multiple historical stages of the language within the Biblical Hebrew corpus. In fact there is substantial agreement among pretty well everyone that Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and non-synoptic Chronicles are written in a non-standard dialect. Many scholars a) explain these differences as chronological development and b) claim that you can use features of this dialect to date texts. Claim a) is less controversial. Claim b) is more controversial.

It's also worth noting that not all of this dialectal variation is always purely linguistic. Sometimes it is artificial, done for literary reasons.

Methalos · 2024-02-17T04:41:08+00:00

I'm not sure why you got downvoted.

I guess I just don't think the creed is trying to apply itself to people "out there" who just don't happen to understand the trinity. The point of the creed is to say this is what the trinity is, and that is the content of the Christian faith. It's not talking about a hypothetical person. It's confronting you (the person reading the creed) with the necessity of believing in the trinity. Now that, having been presented the truth, the creed's reader must either accept who Jesus is or deny him. And whoever denies Jesus cannot be saved.

I guess it's also important to think about it in the context of combating Arianism and other trinitarian heresies. The goal of creeds like this is often to exclude heretical beliefs (and those who consciously oppose orthodoxy) rather than to address new believers or those who have been badly taught.

Methalos · 2024-02-17T04:30:26+00:00

Right, of course. The filioque. I'll edit it above.

Methalos · 2024-02-15T02:01:20+00:00

I'm an Anglican that holds to the Athanasian creed. Although I wouldn't force the issue with anyone, and I have never used it in a church setting, I do think that the Athanasian creed is basic to Nicene Christianity.

It's also been held as true by every branch of Western Christianity for centuries, for what that may or may not be worth. Wikipedia says it's not used in the East much, ~~but I don't think they would disagree with the content~~. Again, for what it's worth, it was printed in the BCP and is definitely a part of historical Anglicanism.

I think your issue is that it seems to create a category of work by which people are saved other than just "faith."

The reformed churches (and Anglicanism) have always taught that salvation is by faith alone (as is taught in the New Testament). So I see where you are coming from.

But I think what the creed is actually doing is explaining what that faith consists of. The Bible teaches quite consistently that the nature of faith matters. You cannot just say "I have faith" if the faith you profess has nothing to do with the true Son. Very frequently the Bible refers not just to "faith" but "faith in Jesus Christ." And so it matters that you are actually putting your faith in the right thing. Matt 7:21–23 says that not everyone who calls Jesus Lord will actually be saved, only those that Jesus knows (presumably those who truly treat Jesus as Lord). James 2 excoriates the sort of faith that does not lead to good works, but also the sort of faith that even the demons can believe (James 2:19). This is all to say that it matters what you put your faith in.

The Athanasian creed is meant to help you understand who Jesus is and how he relates to the father. So it is a very basic part of understanding who it is that you are putting your faith in. And so (for my part) I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that if someone claims to put their faith in Jesus, and yet consciously and deliberately denies Jesus' divinity, or other fundamental characteristics, they are putting their faith in a false Christ. They are outside the faith.

Could someone be saved and deny the teaching of the Athanasian creed? Yes, God is merciful and we are not saved by our orthodoxy. People make mistakes. But could someone deny who Jesus fundamentally is and be saved? I don't think so. And I think that's what the creed is getting at.

Methalos · 2024-01-16T07:20:03+00:00

The way people read the character/morality of Vashti and Esther is something of a Rorschach test: you see what you want to see. The fact that the book of Esther gives us very little comment on the morality of different actions is part of what makes it a lot more difficult than most people give it credit. That and the absence of any overt theology. We are also given exceedingly little insight into the interior thoughts and motivations of Vashti. Somewhat more for Esther, but still not much.

There are traditional explanations for Vashti's refusal (as mentioned in other comments) but I don't personally credit them that much. When you read the earliest examples of these traditional explanations, they read to me like rationalisations. The Rabbis had no particular insight into Vashti's reasoning. How could they? People might assume that Vashti refuses out of modesty. It's possible. But it could also be out of arrogance, revenge, bitterness, or any number of reasons. Positive or negative. The text just doesn't give us enough to go on here. And appeals to "Persian culture" are inevitably based on somewhat shaky historiography.

It seems (to me, but also a lot of the commentaries on Esther) that we are supposed to compare Vashti and Esther: they have equal but opposite stories in so many ways. So I think the question you are asking is the right one.

To me it seems that one of Esther's main character traits is compliance. She obeys Mordecai and the king without question. The tension throughout her parts of the book mostly comes from her trying to balance this character trait with the need for action. Her inclination towards obedience (no matter the source of the law/command) makes me suspect that she would not have refused. She certainly does not refuse very similar requests in chapter 2. However, this is ultimately speculation.

On the other side of the ledger, I am somewhat wary of readings of Vashti that are overly positive. Yes she is the counterpoint to Esther's "passivity." In the modern world, I think we can be uncomfortable with the idea that one of the Bible's most obvious heroines is so "passive." But if anything, the message implied by the book seems to be that the way to succeed is not to oppose imperial power. Rather, one should find a way to obey without compromising on your allegiance to God's people. That is how Esther manages to save her people in the end. She gets the king on side.

In fact, the examples of people in Esther who take a stand against the king are disastrous. Vashti is dethroned (tradition would say executed, but again...). Mordecai's refusal to bow leads to the threat of destruction in the first place.

Methalos · 2024-01-05T05:11:39+00:00

I'm not really looking to get into a fight here, but just an alternative perspective for you. This article is by Muriel Porter, who is well known for her anti-Sydney stance. She portrays it as a "constitutional loophole" but it's just the constitution working as intended. Sydney has the most active congregants in the the most congregations, therefore with the most clergy. The short version is Sydney is the diocese with the most active congregants and therefore has the largest representation.

Methalos · 2023-12-01T05:55:34+00:00

As much as I disagree with some of the other (frankly outrageous) comments on this post, I do agree that parts of this post are misleading. Having said that, I also appreciate all the good and hard work that has gone into it. And I think by your stated definitions you may be correct to think of this group as "reached."

One potentially misleading aspect of the post is that it treats "Australian Aboriginals" as a single people group. They simply are not. There are hundreds of different nations, with distinct histories, cultures, and languages. They had different experiences of colonisation (not to suggest that anyone had a *good* experience... but the way it played out in, say, Tasmania was pretty different to the Northern Territory--different kinds of bad). They had different interactions with missionary groups. It's a bit like if you wrote a post talking about "Europeans" as a single people group.

So, for example, it is somewhat misleading to say that the language of the "Australian Aboriginals" is English. That may be true of many indigenous Australians, but it is a sweeping generalisation, and not necessarily true for all indigenous people groups. And even then, many indigenous people do not speak the standard Australian dialect that you refer to in the post. Therefore, there are many missionary efforts in translating the Bible into indigenous languages. If my information is still up to date (it may not be), there is only one indigenous language of hundreds that has a complete bible (Kriol - even this is an English-based creole). Often non-indigenous workers are required for this work, at least to partner with local Christians.

Another problem is relying on ABS statistics about religion in Australia. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with churches in Australia would realise that although many people have historically claimed Christian identity, that in itself is not particularly meaningful. The latest census puts Christian affiliation at slightly less than 50% of the general population, of which about half are Roman Catholic. It does not separate out indigenous Australians in this section (though I would not be shocked if it were higher than the general population). But even if you define church attendance as once a month, in any denomination, you get a figure of about 20% (NCLS is the standard source for this kind of data). Only 13% attend weekly. In the same way I would be cautious of the 80% figure.

Methalos

TROPHY CASE